North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
- From: Schliesser, Benson
- Date: Thu Dec 15 17:01:50 2005
I don't think your bank analogy is very strong, but never mind that.
I agree with what you're saying in principle, that if a user/customer
buys bit delivery at a fixed rate then we should deliver it. But as ISPs
we don't sell this. As a network operator, I do sell various kinds of
point-to-point connections with fixed/guaranteed rates. But when I sell
"Internet", or L3VPN, etc., I'm selling end-to-end packet-switched
full-mesh connectivity. In this service, not all endpoints are equal and
traffic patterns are not fixed. I.e., the service is flexible. "QoS" is
about giving the customer control over what/how traffic gets
treated/dropped. It's not false advertising.
That said, if QoS controls are used to enforce the provider's
preferences and not the customers' then I might agree with the false
advertising label. If the result is to have anti-competitive effects
then I might have some harsher labels for it, too.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 22:32
To: Hannigan, Martin
Cc: Fergie; email@example.com
Subject: RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
> Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has
> or is never "busy".
s/never/when there are not multiple serious cuts/
would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get
their money back? we're selling delivery of packets at some
bandwidth. we should deliver it. otherwise, it's called false